I can't believe how many of you, including the op, are actually buying into the msm narrative. You guys are like a flag flying in the wind. Peak oil
lol. When did anyone ever run out of oil? ISIS we own them. Nothing in this thread is even close to correct except what I said.

The interest of the cartel IS NOT to terrorize americans, it is to DRUG THEM! and get money out of them, ISIS Terrorism in the southern border WILL
NOT be good for their business, what the drug cartels want is to be as invisible in their drug trafficking as they can be...

ISIS's ISLAM will have a really HARD time recruiting there since most people there are catholic, and really do discriminate against other
religions.

Cultural diferences are too great for sleeper cells integrating into the mexican communities unless they are disguissed as businessmen.

Even tho the a big part of the population hates the "gringos" it is on their best interest to have an economically healthy northern neighboor, they
have a saying over there, "When the US sneezes, Mexico gets Pneumonia" They hate you but they got your back...

The only invasion you can expect from the good ol mexicans is Jumping the border to smuggle drugs or to work in jobs the americans usually don't like
doing for minimum or below minimum wage.

All the violence over there is for control of the drug smugling operation into the US.

(3) Could he (Dorner) be a NSA agent that got burned by the LAPD? Were there certain members of the LAPD and LACSD involved in possible weapons
trafficing to and from Mexico? (David Petraeus, in a security breifing with the US Congress, hinted that Al-Qaeda in Mexico were becoming a realized
threat, and that they could have help from a group of trusted people in the SoCal area)

It should be noted as well that only a few weeks after David Petraeus gave a security briefing to members of congress about the threat of Islamic
Extremists in Mexico, he had that "affair issue" and stepped down for the CIA Directors spot. Anyone who's been keeping an eye on this threat
already knows (and have known for at least two years now) about this.

This aside the US doesn't need to manufacture a threat to invade Mexico. Talk to any Southern Boarder Law Enforcement Agent and they'll tell (and
show you visual and physical) proof of the Mexican Military incursions into US lands (and not for training purposes).

AS to the premise of ISIL being in Mexico...well that's a simple answer; they seem to pop up where ever people feel disenfranchised and are willing
to fight. Those people are easier to recruit and are easier to manipulate for a cause. Ask anyone who's been in a cult, gang, thugee movement,
they'll confirm this. The whole natural gas issue may be a big deal now due to ISIL wanting to have some kind of economic control as well as physical
control over the populace, but it's really an after thought on their part more then a primary goal.

Just had to log in to say "Fantastic job, Loam."
This was a great thread. Your argument is well laid out and solid. I think it's a very reasonable preposition. It will be interesting if it plays
out. There might be enough pushback to finally open the floodgates of public opinion on these types of matters.
At any rate, this the best skunkworks thread I've ever read.
Keep up the good work.

You can bet your ass on this one...if those donkey whippers hit the Texas/Arizona border, they are in for a smashing they could not have
anticipated.
There has been a lot of violence amongst the cartels, but they generally keep it amongst their own.
When they start hitting innocents, the muzzles are coming off and heads will roll.

Loam, I think you are definitely on to something. The Shale/Gas Industry is a big deal...perhaps the biggest ever! it is the new "gold"...the
"black gold" of the olden days is not the big deal it once was. The entire world is being over run with the shale/gas issue. Everyone wants in. It
is really BIG relevant to energy giants and what the world wants/needs now. I can envision factions involved in the big push really pulling out all
the stops. Nothing would surprise me, at this point, when it comes to acquiring land/minerals/natural gas locations. These fracking companies are
running rough shod over the world and they have been given the "green light" by someone or some factions and will do anything to get what they
want.

The extremely open borders here...the huge flow of people coming here...I have always felt there was an agenda...something more to it all then cheap
labor and humanitarian reasons. The open borders have always been suspect. The agenda may be as you say...perfect storm for a false flag
scenario...and fighting to acquire land/resources/minerals. Feels like you have really hit upon what that possible agenda is all about.

You guys totally don't get it. There's not going to be a false flag on the border. If something does happen on the border, it will be for real, but
I doubt that very much. Like mentioned, that would hurt the cartels.

What the open border is all about is flooding the country with low information future dem voters, and keeping wages low for ever. Toss the blacks
under the bus, the dems don't need them anymore. There's a new base now, and their numbers are unlimited, and growing, unlike blacks.

The crooked gop otoh are bought off my big business, so they're not going to do anything about it either. It's a simple as that. Has nothing to do
with oil, unless China somehow gets involved. Then all bets are off. We're not going to allow China to get any cheap oil.

ISIS is just a new boogie man to scare us in line, because the old boogie isn't scaring Americans anymore.

a reply to: loam
I read your entire thread S & f, very well done and very intelligently put together.
Have you read this article, I'm just asking, because I think the Prayer Rug which I understand is Only One Of Many Found, I find interesting. Link

At least five Russian mafia gangs are operating in Mexico and may spark a violent struggle to control drug trafficking and other
illegal activities because recent arrests have weakened Mexican drug cartels, Universal reported.

The Russian group operates in Tijuana, Mexico City and Cancun and is made up of former members of the KGB and special forces who
specialize in illegal drugs, arms trafficking and money laundering, El Universal said, citing information obtained from the Mexican Attorney
General's Office, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, the U.S. State Department and Interpol.

Jose Luis Santiago, chief of Mexico's special unit for organized crime, said they have information of Russian mafia operations between Tijuana and San
Diego, but have yet to open an official investigation, the newspaper reported.

Looking for more recent articles to confirm this, I came up with nothing.

So the Russian mafia operates in Mexico, in a silent way that was established more than a decade in the nation's capital, a decade where victims
confuse tourism with the pink zone, without the authorities realize the crime that occurs daily in a major country's most popular areas.

Many think that the remote Russian Mafia (Bratva (Братва) has no presence in Mexico, but it is not, they have been here since the
early 90's, then why has no one heard of them? Simple and simply because unlike the Mexican cartels are very discreet them to do business.

Crouched, hidden waiting a winner in the war between the Mexican cartels, the Russian mafia beyond what is known has been in Mexico for almost two
decades, ]began to do business first with the Tijuana cartel led by the Arellano Felix and then with the Juarez cartel of Amado
Carrillo, better known as "the lord of heaven" because smuggling drugs in airplanes, that it was to negotiate your purchase to Moscow where he met
with key leaders of the local mafia.

Due to the fierce fighting of the Mexican cartels along the routes for trafficking narcotics Russian mob waiting patiently calmed the waters for
better terms when negotiating at the moment do not quite simply because the atmosphere is very volatile and map influence of Mexican cartels may
change at any time.

The low profile handle is so they are very difficult to detect and their contacts with the Mexican cartels are almost unknown by the authorities of
Mexico and the United States by as silent way they operate, but do not be fooled, the mafia Russian is the bloodiest in the world.

While we do not know of any tacit alliance with a Mexican cartel various cells of the Russian mafia operating within the national territory.

Besides allies engage in drug trafficking to Mexican cartels, the Russian mafia in Mexico also operates in money laundering, trafficking in persons,
bodies and weapons.

Notice that Juarez connection again.

The article further describes:

These are some of the cells of the Russians is related to drug trafficking in Mexico.

Tambov: Its twists this heroin trafficking coc aine, have contacts in Western Europe and Africa. They have specialized operators in other
crimes such as kidnapping, trafficking and smuggling of migrants.

Solntnezkaya: Lavan money from some holiday paradises, trafficking coc aine and weapons. It is also engaged in trafficking.

Mazukinskaya: They engage in exchange of weapons for drugs competing directly with the criminal organizations that supply Mexican cartels from
EU, drug transport it to Europe for marketing, have the related organ trafficking activity.

While fighting for the territory of the Mexican cartels continue, the Russian mafia will continue to wait to do more business with the
victor safe until then continue driving the low profile that characterizes them and will continue to negotiate with everyone, they will not mind
poster is the winner or dominant, after all business is business.

You'll have to excuse the bad google translation, but I think you get the point. The Russian MOB is alive and well in Mexico,
and they've been there for at least a decade- perhaps more.

When U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry accused Russia of trying to impose its will through the “barrel of a gun and the force of a mob,” he could
just as well have said “the force of the mob.” After all, this is the new model of asymmetric conflict in which Moscow is using
myriad covert, third-party, and deniable agents to extend its power. Among them are local gangsters, both petty and powerful, who are
providing everything from local political allies to street muscle. In the process, Moscow is demonstrating the extent to which organized crime can be
used as a tool of statecraft and war.

This article explains:

...local hoodlums are operating among the pro-Russian protests in the restive eastern Ukraine, helping to direct them on the
instructions of Kremlin-linked organized crime groups.

Russia is a corrupt, autocratic kleptocracy centered on the leadership of Vladimir Putin, in which officials, oligarchs and organized
crime are bound together to create a "virtual mafia state", according to leaked secret diplomatic cables that provide a damning American assessment of
its erstwhile rival superpower.

Arms trafficking, money laundering, personal enrichment, protection for gangsters, extortion and kickbacks, suitcases full of money and secret
offshore bank accounts in Cyprus: the cables paint a bleak picture of a political system in which bribery alone totals an estimated $300bn a year, and
in which it is often hard to distinguish between the activities of the government and organised crime.

So let's go back to Mexico and look at something else I've already mentioned.

Remember that Russian oil company, Lukoil, that somehow managed the very first foreign contract when Mexico changed it's Constitution to open up its
oil industry to foreign companies?

How did a Russian oil company beat any US company to the punch in our own back yard? Aren't we close friends with Mexico? Aren't they
part of NAFTA? Aren't we the ones with the very infrastructure, resources and know-how to help Mexico out with its declining performance in the oil
and gas industry?

But a Russian oil company got the deal.

That had to have been a political earthquake in Washington.

But wait, there's more.

Lukoil has....you guessed it....Russian mafia ties.

Remember those wiki-leaks cables?

Against the backdrop of Lukoil's reported interest in acquiring a roughly 30 percent stake in Repsol (See Refs G and H), the Spanish press in November
2008 highlighted that Kalashov owned a "significant" share in Lukoil and that he and Tariel Oniani had acted as consultants
during 2003-04 to help bring the Russian energy giant into Spain to open 150 gas stations, among other projects. Citing files provided by Swiss
prosecutors, Spanish court documents estimate Kalashov's personal fortune at 200 million euros.

So this mobster owned significant shares and had close ties to Lukoil, no big deal.

But let's take a look at the guy at the top: Lukoil's current President, Vagit Alekperov.

...By 1991, Alekperov had established himself as an industry expert, winning an appointment as first deputy minister of fuel and energy, then as
acting minister. He used his newly attained power to lobby for the consolidation of Russia's three oil producers into one company -- then assumed
presidency of the new company. His nicknames, "the General," "Alek the First" and "the Don," are indicative of his indisputable
authority at LUKoil, whose name came from the first letters of the three companies that consolidated-- Langepas, Urai and Kogalym. Today
LUKoil is among the world's most powerful oil companies, with reserves second only to Exxon. Like many other oligarchs, Alekperov has moved into
banking and media.

...

In 1997, the Russian newsdaily Izvestia detailed allegations linking top LUKoil officials to organized crime. In a blow against
press freedom, LUKoil, a major shareholder in the newspaper, promptly took over a majority on the newspaper's board and fired its top editors.

Marijuana has accounted for nearly half of all total drug arrests in the US for the past 20 years, according to the FBI’s crime statistics. And
according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), a large portion of the US illegal drug market is controlled directly by Mexican cartels. The DOJ’s
National Drug Intelligence Center, which has since been shut down, found in 2011 that the top cartels controlled the majority of drug trade in
marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine in over 1,000 US cities.

Now, those cartels and their farmers complain that marijuana legalization is hurting their business. And some reports could suggest that
the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is more interested in helping to protect the Mexican cartels’ hold on the pot trade than in letting it
dissipate.

Seven Mexican cartels have long battled for dominance of the US illegal drug market: Sinaloa, Los Zetas, Gulf, Juarez, Knights Templar, La Familia,
and Tijuana. While some smaller cartels operate only along border regions in the Southwest and Southeast, giant cartels like Sinaloa have a presence
on the streets of every single region.

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that pot farmers in the Sinaloa region have stopped planting due to a massive drop in wholesale
prices, from $100 per kilo down to only $25. One farmer is quoted as saying: “It’s not worth it anymore. I wish the Americans would stop with this
legalization.”

Deeper in the article, we see the claim that the DEA is actively resisting legalization in the US and doesn't want the drug trade to end, because it
would lose its influence and much of their militarized toys.

But maybe there is another rational theory?

Maybe we need a healthy, albeit chaotic, drug cartel to minimize all of that Russian influence I've described above.

It could also explain the seemingly irrational Obama policy of making our southern border less secure. We're helping the cartels reduce business
expense.

An investigation by El Universal found that between the years 2000 and 2012, the U.S. government had an arrangement with Mexico's
Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed the organization to smuggle billions of dollars of drugs while Sinaloa provided information on rival
cartels.

Sinaloa, led by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, supplies 80% of the drugs entering the Chicago area and has a presence in cities across the U.S.

There have long been allegations that Guzman, considered to be "the world’s most powerful drug trafficker," coordinates with American
authorities.

But the El Universal investigation is the first to publish court documents that include corroborating testimony from a DEA agent and a Justice
Department official.

...

"The DEA agents met with members of the cartel in Mexico to obtain information about their rivals and simultaneously built a network of
informants who sign drug cooperation agreements, subject to results, to enable them to obtain future benefits, including cancellation of charges in
the U.S.," reports El Universal, which also interviewed more than one hundred active and retired police officers as well as prisoners and
experts.

...approved by high-ranking officials...

Are the pieces of the puzzle falling into place yet?

We seem to be keenly interested in information...and not so much illegal drug smuggling.

And something else very significant is happening to the drug cartels...

The drug cartels that have been flourishing in recent years in Mexico have been diversifying their illicit portfolio by stealing from
Pemex, the state-run oil and gas company. Oil theft has risen 1,548% since 2000 and is a continual problem for pipeline maintenance
personnel.

Oil is Mexico’s main export and approximately a third of its tax revenues come from petroleum development. Meanwhile, the country has just opened up
its energy sector to foreign investments. If companies are planning on coming over the border for oil, they had better bring a
platoon.

Now we may finally understand that the real reason Lukoil won that first major contract in Mexico. Is it because they did "bring a
platoon" of sorts- Russia's imbedded mafia in Mexico?

The timing of the Mexican drug cartels' interest in the energy black market is pretty suspicious. VICE News blames it on energy pricing, but that
theory doesn't hold over the course of nearly 15 years. The arrival of the Russian mob does. They've done this before. They're doing this now in other
places in the world.

Problem. Meet Solution.

Does anyone still believe Washington isn't very, very freaked out by all of this?

First, he describes the creation of a "gas OPEC", the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF), at the end of 2008. Its charter members were Iran, Qatar
and Russia.

Iran, Qatar and Russia have agreed to form an OPEC-style organization for gas-exporting countries, Iran's oil minister said
Tuesday after a trilateral meeting in Tehran.

The move will give Russia a greater say in international sales of natural gas and comes on the same day that OPEC Secretary General
Abdalla Salem El-Badri arrived in Moscow to meet government officials.

Paralleling the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) — The New York Times calls it a “gas OPEC” — GECF is a bloc
of countries whose mission is to fend off U.S. and Western power dominance of the global gas trade. The 13 member countries include Russia, Iran,
Bolivia, Venezuela, Libya, Algeria and several others.

GECF has held informal meetings since 2001, becoming an official chartered organization in 2008 and dominated in the main by
Russia. GECF Secretary General Leonid Bokhanovskiy is also the former VP of Stroytransgaz, a subsidiary of Russian oil and gas giant
Gazprom.

Depicting the close proximity between Putin’s regime and GECF’s leadership is the fact that Gennady Timchenko – a member of
“Putin’s inner circle,” according to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism – owns an 80-percent stake in Stroytransgaz.

Horn then describes how, in 2010, the United States launched it's own shale gas cooperation initiative, leaving Russia notably out of the mix.

Russia excluded from State Dept. fracking “missionary force”

In August 2010, President Obama’s first-term State Department established the Global Shale Gas Initiative (GSGI), now referred to as
the Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program.

Its purpose: creating a so-called “missionary force,” showing other countries fracking’s “best practices” based on the U.S.
experience.

“The GSGI uses government-to-government policy engagement to bring federal and state governments’ technical expertise, regulatory experience in
ensuring the safety of water supplies and air quality, and diplomatic capabilities to bear in helping selected countries understand their shale gas
potential and the responsibilities of governments,” the State Department explains on its website.

State Department officials have spent time instructing Ukraine, Poland, China and India how to do fracking “safely and economically.” This
tutelage agenda is yet another way to wean NATO countries off of Russian gas...

And let's remember, it isn't just Russian energy and it's influence over the world that concerns us, it's also our prior problem with the Middle East
and OPEC.

Forty years after an Arab oil embargo throttled the U.S. economy, surging North American energy production has brought the United States closer to a
long-dreamed “energy independence” that is reshaping its goals and role in the Middle East. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
announced an oil embargo against the United States and any other country that supported Israel in the 1973 war on Oct. 17 the same year. That use of
oil as a diplomatic weapon has driven an American yearning for disengagement from the Middle East and its problems ever since.

...

In the decades that followed the OPEC embargo, “you could not make plans in the Middle East or involving Middle East crises, without
keeping in mind the considerations of the oil market,” Henry Kissinger, who was secretary of state during the 1973 oil shock, said Wednesday.

“But that is now changing substantially with the, I wouldn’t say ‘self sufficiency’ but narrowing the gap between supply and demand in North
America, that is now of huge strategic consequence,” Kissinger said at a conference hosted by the group Securing America’s Future Energy.

The United States is less reliant each month on Middle East energy, thanks to increasing production of both oil and natural gas from technologies such
as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which allows extraction of oil and gas from shale deposits.

The country could be energy self-sufficient – producing enough to meet its own needs – by 2020, according to several analyses, and a debate has
begun on whether to end an effective ban on U.S. crude oil exports.

The growth of the United States as an energy power is already making a difference in foreign policy.

But as I have already pointed out in my previous posts, there remains concern that our shale gas revolution might not be sustained by US deposits
alone.

In Horn's article, he writes:

Industry cheerleaders as well as President Obama and other like-minded politicians say there are “100 years of natural gas” under the United
States, a geopolitical game-changer to say the very least.

But independent petroleum geologists and investors alike see it differently, concluding perhaps 15-20 years of gas exist at current diminishing,
“exploration treadmill” rates of return.

“More and more wells must be drilled and operated to maintain production as the average productivity per well is declining,” David
Hughes, a Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute explains in his report “Drill Baby, Drill.” “Since 1990, the number of operating gas wells in the
United States has increased by 90 percent while the average productivity per well has declined by 38 percent.”

This means there likely won’t be enough gas to fend off GECF and Russian dominance of the global gas market in the long term, particularly because
Russia relies on easier-to-obtain conventional gas, as opposed to tough-to-obtain unconventional shale gas.

Despite the reality of the “exploration treadmill,” myriad politicians have backed the notion of the U.S. serving as a global supplier of gas via
LNG exports. Congress has already introduced two bills in 2013 – the Expedite our Economy Act of 2013 and the Expedited LNG for American Allies Act
of 2013 – calling for expedited approval of the remaining LNG export terminal proposals.

“[T]he timeline for considering these applications may jeopardize our ability to retain a competitive position against other natural
gas exporting nations who are also working diligently to export LNG,” a bipartisan cadre of 34 U.S. Senators wrote in a July 9 letter to U.S.
Department of Energy head Ernest Moniz urging the DOE for to speedily approve LNG export terminal applications. “There is a global race for market
share underway,” the letter continued. “American competitors have been at a disadvantage for the past year and a half because the Department of
Energy has delayed action on pending applications.”

...

...“Our bill will also promote the energy security of key U.S. allies by helping reduce their dependence on oil and gas from
countries, such as Russia and Iran,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), co-sponsor of the Expedited LNG for American Allies Act of 2013, of the
rational behind the bill’s January 2013 introduction.

Months later, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) wrote similarly in a June 2013 Houston Chronicle op-ed piece. “Aside from unquestionable economic benefits,
there are also geopolitical considerations that make exporting LNG to our friends and allies a no-brainer,” Poe wrote.
“The risk of high reliance on Russian gas has been a principal driver of European energy policy in recent decades … From the U.S.
perspective, cheap but reliable natural gas would reduce Moscow’s clout while shoring up goodwill amongst our allies.”

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January
23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf.

It was a response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the United States' Cold War
adversary—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf.

The following key sentence, which was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Adviser, concludes
the section:

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on
the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Brzezinski modeled the wording on the Truman Doctrine, and insisted that the sentence be included in the speech "to make it very clear that the
Soviets should stay away from the Persian Gulf".

In Carter's 1980 State of the Union Address, he said:

The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's
exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the
Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a
strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.

This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands
collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely
on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in
the area which might be threatened.

Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call
on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the
vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

If you really think about it, that speech wasn't that long ago. And just look at what's happened over in the Middle East in these past three and a
half decades.

How could the shale gas revolution not be in the vital interests of the United States of America?

One final thing for the tin-foil hat wearers... I hope you've stayed with me through these very long posts.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the guy who helped Jimmy Carter craft that doctrine "is regarded
as one of President Obama's main advisers on foreign politics."

If you hunt and peck around the web, you'll see some pretty staunch support for the shale gas revolution.

Perhaps this speech, given by John Deutch in the 2011 North American Trilateral Commission meeting, sums their interest up well enough:

A lot has been said about shale gas this evening which is informative and correct. The emergence of this shale gas resource is the
biggest deal that has happened in the 40 plus that I've been working on energy problems. It was completely unexpected. In 2008, when the
National Petroleum Council put out its Hard Truth Report, it was barely mentioned. In 2006, two percent of our natural gas came from shale. Today,
this year, it will be about 20 percent and it is projected to go to 45 percent.

Barack Obama appointed eleven members of the Trilateral Commission to top-level and key positions in his administration within his first
ten days in office.

Obama was groomed for the presidency by key members of the Trilateral Commission. Most notably, Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral
Commission with David Rockefeller in 1973, has been Obama’s principal foreign policy advisor.

According to official Trilateral Commission membership lists, there are only eighty-seven members from the United States (the other 337 members are
from other countries). Thus, within two weeks of his inauguration, Obama’s appointments encompassed more than 12 percent of Commission’s entire US
membership.

There are many other links in the Obama administration to the Trilateral Commission. For instance, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is married to
Commission member William Jefferson Clinton.

Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner’s informal group of advisors include E. Gerald Corrigan, Paul Volker, Alan Greenspan, and Peter G. Peterson, all
members. Geithner’s first job after college was with Trilateralist Henry Kissinger at Kissinger Associates.

Trilateralist Brent Scowcroft has been an unofficial advisor to Obama and was mentor to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. And Robert Zoelick, current
president of the World Bank appointed during the G.W. Bush administration, is a member.

Henry Kissinger, also a Trilateral Commission participant, just this week went public with
these statements:

To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for
itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any
multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a
multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend
on circumstance?

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with
recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined,
the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in
favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive
geopolitical strategy.

It's true that Russia, China, and America run the world, so Russia is always going to be a factor. In the 80s it was about keeping the price of oil
low to kill Russia's economy, which we did. Now it's about keeping the price of oil high to hurt China's economy.

We would also like to undermine Russia's monopoly on European energy. That was the goal in Syria. Syria is the only way for a pipeline to Europe from
the middle East. That's why Russia stopped us. Now we have ISIS trying to do our dirty work for us. They might someday get control of Syria, but in
the meantime they can keep Iraq from pumping oil to help China.

Meanwhile the poppy fields in Afghanistan have never been more productive since under our protection. Russian mafia is into heroin big time. U.S. is
now full of heroin. Russian's on our border, duh.

"So it wouldn't take much. A few simple attacks on American soil, even with minor or no casualties, would be enough to wrap the public around the
President's finger. Connect it to ISIS and the Texas border, and bingo, you get immediate justification for a temporary military occupation of the
zone. "

I was in/around Boston after the bombings. Look what they did for that, whole city was shut down...and only a few were killed in the initial attack.
The public ate it up hook, line and sinker, and seemed to welcome the police state for days...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.